Going To The Chapel, Take Two

For the love of criminy why should I care about this?

He may well have confirmed your story, but it doesn't mean you're not a bit dim. Just sayin'.
.

Aren't you late for a WaPo pay-to-delay health care salon or something?

Amy Sullivan:
.
I know I'm a bit dim...
.
Yes.

NOOOOOOOOOOO! Not again.....

"I know I'm a bit dim"
.
Finally! You get it!

But hey on a day when the Swamp also dedicated two posts to Sanford's loins and yet another on the "dishy" Mac-Palin fallout, I can almost forgive your admitted dimness. Perhaps your self-awareness will prove contagious, though the above indicates it doesn't change much about your work.

In fairness to Amy, she writes about religion and politics. Yes, she has a track record for throwing athiests, agnostics, and otherwise tolerant religious Democrats under the bus. But this is her beat.
.
If you don't care about this dynamic (God and politics) then I am not sure it is entirely necessary to post your disapproval. I'm not talking about when Amy posts something ridiculous. I'm talking a about complaining about any religious post.

Sq1: But it's "necessary" to spend this much time engaging Spob!?
~
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/07/02/a-senate-committees-health-reform-bill/?apage=2#comment-77495

Sq1
~
The role of religion in politics is a worthy enough arena to post on. However, where the President decides to worship is far removed from that sphere. And to post on this topic twice?

In fairness to Amy, she writes about religion and politics.
.
This blog was just fine with out a reporter who writes about religion and politics. I been reading this blog before Amy started posting here. No one asked my opinion if it was a good idea for her to post here. If they had, I would have said no. But since no one asked my opinion in the first instance I will feel free to express it now.
.
It should not matter what religion the Obama's practice or if they practice one at all. It has no weight on my life or any other American's life. His policies do. I don't sleep better or have more pep in my step because the Obamas do or don't go to church. So to me these type of posts push down other worth talking about posts. That's my opinion.

" .. We may choose, rather than to join just one church, to rotate and attend a number of different churches. "

Given that BHO is a president to all Americans, and that he does not wish to be localized, then he does not mind being seen praying to that god in a Catholic church, right? A buddhist temple? A Hindu temple? A muslim mosque? A voodoo shrine?

I hate to tell Obama this, but his "comings and goings" at Camp David inconvenience thousands of people a year who visit the Catoctin Mountain park where it is located. Our church has held annual retreats in the closest public campground to Camp David for 30 years, and since 9/11/01 the "security perimeter" around Camp David has been enlarged when the POTUS is there (or the VPOTUS), blocking access to several family-friendly campus trails and forcing long detours to reach the major group sites.
.
Like this coming weekend:
.
http://www.nps.gov/cato/planyourvisit/closure-map.htm

One year we hade to stay put at our site for three hours (no one in or out) while W took a bike ride.
.
We do have a worship service on Sunday, maybe he'll show up if we invite him. It can't be any more disruptive than what we have experienced the last 8 years. But I'm not sure he can risk being seen with Unitarian Universalists.

On the other hand, we did enjoy filming this last October, when Dick Cheney was camping next door:
.

.
In fairness to Amy, she writes about religion and politics...this is her beat.
.
Where the Obamas choose to go to church is about religion or politics?. Why is this important? What does it say about religion or politics?
.
If you don't care about this dynamic (God and politics) then I am not sure it is entirely necessary to post your disapproval.
.
You do realize that you are expressing disapproval about others' expression of disapproval, right?

Actually, the ONLY reason I'm interested in POTUS going to church is out of concern for his security. Look what happened to Dr. Tiller in church. Church is where the crazy people go (except you of course Joyo!) I'd rather have POTUS just ask a chaplain to do a White House call.

square1 –

It's consumer feedback. If we don't tell the Swamp People straight out about the content and quality of their posts there's not much likelihood of improvement. See also, for comparison, the effusive (and richly deserved) praise for KT's latest on health care?

This blog was just fine with out a reporter who writes about religion and politics.
.
And would, frankly, be better off without somebody on the staff masquerading as one.
.
Just sayin'.

Gunny, I basically agree with you. This blog is infinitely better without a dedicated religion and politics correspondent.
.
I've also, at various times, mocked, criticized, and ignored Sullivan's posts. So, I don't come here to praise her or her beat, by any stretch. If you want to email the editors and ask them to remove her from Swampland, you have my full support.
.
I guess I just don't see the point in a bunch of responses to every Sullivan post that are essentially "Why are you posting about this?" when the answer obviously is "Sullivan covers religion and politics".
.
Some of the criticism is over the top. Personally, I could die a happy man if I never read another word about Obama's religious views or what churches he attends. But I think it is silly to suggest that the question of what (and what denomination of) church that the President attends does not fall into the scope of a religion and politics blogger.

I get my tasty religion-and-politics mix at Belief.net:
.
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/index.aspx

OT: But since this is the top post. Must read here:
.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine/print
/
Matt Taibbi on how Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression
/
MATT TAIBBI
.
The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.
/
Any attempt to construct a narrative around all the former Goldmanites in influential positions quickly becomes an absurd and pointless exercise, like trying to make a list of everything. What you need to know is the big picture: If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain — an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism, which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.
/
They achieve this using the same playbook over and over again. The formula is relatively simple: Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap. Then they hoover up vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies the bank throws at political patronage. Finally, when it all goes bust, leaving millions of ordinary citizens broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again, riding in to rescue us all by lending us back our own money at interest, selling themselves as men above greed, just a bunch of really smart guys keeping the wheels greased. They've been pulling this same stunt over and over since the 1920s — and now they're preparing to do it again, creating what may be the biggest and most audacious bubble yet.

No worries Gunny: AS = OT
~
And as long as we're posting Taibbi, I'll add his wonderful takedown of Zakaria from last week:
~
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/22506
~
"It's one thing to say that Citi wasted some of the money taxpayers sent its way via the bailout; it's another thing to say Citi wasted some of the taxpayers' money by upholstering the pillows on the private jet Sandy Weill took to Mexico over Christmas vacation with Hermes scarves. It's one thing to say Wall Street bankers felt pressure to chase profits; it's another thing to say they achieved those profits by systematically robbing a whole generation of pensioners and working-class homeowners, under the noses of the politicians they bought with tens of millions in campaign contributions."
~
But hey, some lobbyists are OK, so no worries! There are those who think the system is fundamentally f@cked and those who think that a few bad apples have spoiled things. You decide.

AS=OT....haha, classic.
~
JC, you should read...http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html
~
I'm copy/pasting this question to you from "How Diplomacy Works"
I would like your honest opinions on Noam Chomsky. While he is rightly considered a champion of the Palestinian cause and has furthered, more than any other intellectual, the documentation of the transgressions perpetrated against the Palestinians and refutation of the perpetuated false equivalences in allocating culpability, Chomsky appears to unequivocally deflect the ultimate blame away from Israel itself and onto the United States. While American complicity is undeniable, the inherent problem has little to do with any real American interest and nearly everything to do with Israeli-Zionist expansionist goals. Yet, it has troubled me over the years how Chomsky always reverts the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to an indictment of American imperialism. This is not wholly unfounded, but to largely reject Israeli guilt while making such an assertion strikes me intentionally dishonest. As a young man Chomsky was a committed Zionist, albeit rarely discussed. Do either of you agree that Chomsky is torn between his humanity, evident in his views on the Palestinians, and his loyalty to Israel, illustrated by evasively deflecting Israeli guilt upon the United States?
~
I have always respected Noam Chomsky and have considered him one of the foremost experts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, I simply cannot reconcile his defense of Israel, by way of his omission of explicit guilt, with his sense of Palestinian righteousness. This has always struck me as an inherently contradictory standpoint, however relevant and accurate his documentation has been.
~

gysgt213: " .. So to me these type of posts push down other worth talking about posts. .."

Topics worthier than the epic struggle between good and evil?

Hey guys, leave my favorite Bible Gal alone!
Maybe you dare not care what will happen to your measly, Cheney-type vestige of a soul in the here-after. But many of us do - and so we read Amy Sullivan.

Jeez, N-R, that's a "question"!? I'll set aside the lengthy article you attached, simply due to little time/inclination to get too deeply into this morass. But a couple of quick thoughts:
~
1. Firstly, I'd say "deflecting blame" is a mischaracterization of his work. I think he correctly blames both. For an ex. of his balanced criticism, see here:
~
http://tech.mit.edu/V128/N63/chomskytalk.html
~
2. The notion that the root problem has little to do with American interests I deem naive. That's like saying Americans bases are altruistically placed in Japan merely to protect its citizens, as opposed to American interests in the region. Someone once deemed the J-islands themselves floating US battleships in a game of geopolitical risk.
~
3. Of the $30 billion we'll provide the Israelis over the next decade, as you're surely aware, nearly all of those funds will go to the purchase of weapons, the vast majority of which are of US manufacture (i.e. the happy MIC). Thus, whenever a Palestinian is killed by the Israeli military, odds are it's with your tax $ and American-made guns/bombs.
~
4. Though I loathe the beast that is Tommy Boy Friedman, he once said something I found spot-on re: N. Korea, that at any pt. if China wanted the NKoreans to put an end to their nuke program they'd simply have to whisper into Kim's ear, shut it down or we turn off your electricity. They're not merely the NK patron, without Chinese support, NK would cease to function within months. Of course, this is not something the Chinese or even the Russians are willing to consider, as they're thrilled to have a buffer against western interests in the region. This equation is, of course, symmetrical where South Korea or Taiwan is concerned. Israel is little more than a fort in the middle east, an ally in our own failing but still determined grasp at empire. Cut off from our financial and military support and perhaps equally damaging, our diplomatic cover at the UN, and Israel is immediately forced to take rational steps towards lasting peace.
~
BTW, see Chalmers Johnson for a fuller illustration of our forts abroad:
~
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175091/chalmers_johnson_baseless_expenditures
~
A final note, the powers that be here in Asia or SW Asia have no interest in peace or reconciliation--if peace is achieved the great game and that monstrous gravy train comes to an end.

Exiled:
.
I can't explain what I'm trying to say as well as I would like, so I will have to do so as well as I am able and hope that you will be able to comprehend what I am trying to convey.
.
Chomsky's discussion of foreign policy generally tends to focus on the US. I assume this is because he is a US citizen, and his audiences are generally US citizens, and US citizens could conceivably be involved in making policy in the US, whereas they would not be involved in making policy in other countries (unless the US has installed a puppet government or whatever).
.
It is incorrect to assert that he apportions the blame on the US and not on Israel. He blames the US to the extent that the US is responsible for events. What's the use in blaming other countries? Why say, Israel should do this differently? It isn't his business, or our business, to say what Israel or any other country should or shouldn't do. His business, as a US citizen, is the policy of his own country. America has no moral standing to tell other countries what is correct or incorrect to do, and so he generally doesn't "place blame" on other countries--he just states what has occurred, and to what extent the US was involved, since that's the part that we can (or, to the extent that our elected officials do whatever they want, can't) control.
.
This is my understanding from what I recall of his works that I've read so far (which have been a pretty random assortment). I haven't noticed any difference in his treatment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from Vietnam or Iran or anything else -- it's all focused on providing facts, and emphasizing the choices by US personnel that caused the outcomes that occurred.